Nah, he is playing a variant of the religion of peace argument by saying that there is no connection between a holy book that says it is sometimes okay to kill infidels on sight; Imams preaching that it a Muslim's duty to kill and a nut actually doing it. No, let's just focus on the last act and sweep everything else under the carpet.

If one of these EDL types goes crazy and stabs someone, will he be so casual about the various hate groups that encouraged him to do it? Somehow I think he won't.

The IRA weren't terrorists? The Catholics fighting against repression in South America - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay - didn't commit terrorism? The ANC didn't carry out terrorism? Presumably you've never heard of that little continent known as Africa, or groups like the LRA? The genocide in Rwanda didn't occur? The Iron Guard? Hutatree? NLFT? NSCN? Concerned Christians? Oppressed or not we can look at examples of Christian terrorism, it exists.

Not only have Christians committed terrorism, but they do it specifically in the name of Christianity too. In Nigeria the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, a Christian group, commits terrorism regularly and are clear in that they're "defending" Christianity(from Muslims).

You mention Muslim dominated countries. Are there not Christians in Hamas and Fatah? Hamas has had Christian leaders. Dr. Wadih Haddad, George Habash, Chris Al-Bandak, and so on are examples of Christians linked to or guilty of terrorism. Habash, who created the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all but invented the now famed terrorist tactic of hijacking planes. It's a lesser known fact that terrorist groups in these regions have Christian members. There are Christians who go a bit further than smuggling bibles.

Nobody is saying there's exact symmetry, Christianity generally is more liberal and reasonable than Islam, western atheism has made sure of that. But that doesn't exclude Christians from acting horrendously, especially when they're being slaughtered and/or oppressed by foreign or domestic enemies. Therefore you'd have to conclude that if Christianity wasn't the dominant powerforce in the world, if the shoe was on the other foot, that Islamic terrorism would drop whereas Christian terrorism would rise. I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view.

And I'm not suggesting for one moment there would be no Islamic terrorism if we changed our foreign policy, if that's what you think.

There are a lot of inaccuracies in this. No, there are not Christian leaders in Hamas, Hamas is an Islamist organisation. There are Christians in Fatah. Hamas are a far more extreme organisation than Fatah. The Iron Guard were not a terrorist organisation. They were a political party along the lines of the fascists.

Whilst it is true that oppressed people generally do commit terrorism. It is also an unavoidable truth that the two men responsible for the machete attack were not oppressed by anyone. This is one of the things that makes Islam uniquely dangerous. The concept of "umma" tells people that they are part of the same community as the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Chechens, the Palestinians etc and the oppression of these people is also their oppression. The problem being that they have little or no knowledge of events in these places and are easily influenced by propaganda.

The follow-up incidentally has been a three-fold increase in online support for the EDL, attacks on mosques and anybody looking vaguely Muslim on the rise - and a possible connection to a French soldier being stabbed in Paris by gentlemen who may or may not be Muslim.

Signs of jihad seem to be absent.

I think a French soldier being stabbed is exactly the sign you are looking for.

Thankfully the West has been taking Islamic extremism far more seriously of late (still not seriously enough though) hence there has been a reduction in the capabilities of Islamist nutters. A stabbed soldier is a terrible thing but it's better than another set of bombs in London and that was better than the Madrid bombing which was better than 9/11.

This is a conflict that can be won but only be putting pressure on the authorities to act, not by turning a blind eye.

Nah, he is playing a variant of the religion of peace argument by saying that there is no connection between a holy book that says it is sometimes okay to kill infidels on sight; Imams preaching that it a Muslim's duty to kill and a nut actually doing it. No, let's just focus on the last act and sweep everything else under the carpet.

If one of these EDL types goes crazy and stabs someone, will he be so casual about the various hate groups that encouraged him to do it? Somehow I think he won't.

I agree.

There also seems to be a bit of a flood of 'he was just a regular guy' type features. He's hardly going to tell all and sundry about his real plans is he? Its like when a serial killer is caught and the neighbours all say 'quiet guy....do anything for anyone..etc'
Its called a front.

There also seems to be a bit of a flood of 'he was just a regular guy' type features. He's hardly going to tell all and sundry about his real plans is he? Its like when a serial killer is caught and the neighbours all say 'quiet guy....do anything for anyone..etc'
Its called a front.

It's either a front or simply that people are more complex than the media would like to portray them. Either way, what the current crop of stories reinforces is that there are simply no excuses for murderous behaviour: the only people responsible for it are the people who enact it. Killers can come from the best or worst of backgrounds but their backgrounds don't turn them into killers. They do.

It's either a front or simply that people are more complex than the media would like to portray them. Either way, what the current crop of stories reinforces is that there are simply no excuses for murderous behaviour: the only people responsible for it are the people who enact it. Killers can come from the best or worst of backgrounds but their backgrounds don't turn them into killers. They do.

A cliched cop-out.

It's clear that certain backgrounds do predispose people to committing this kind of atrocity. If you go through the backgrounds of killers, you can find similarities and you can put them into broad categories.

In the recent cases, you'll find that all the perpetrators will have close connections to groups such as Al Mujaharoon. 25% of those imprisoned for Islamist terrorist offences have connections with Al Muj. Al Muj make up far, far less than 25% of UK Muslims. Therefore there is a connection between the two. Again Muslims make up 2% of the UK population but commit far more than 2% of the terrorist acts even allowing for differences in classification. This is not a coincidence.

I think it is rather telling that the Muslim Council of Great Britain are less in denial than some forumites:-

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed reservations at some of May's proposals. In a statement, it said: "We must be vigilant and ensure we do not inadvertently give into the demands of all extremists: making our society less free, divided and suspicious of each other. Lessons from the past indicate that policies and measures taken in haste can exacerbate extremism.

"We acknowledge that there is a difficult conversation to be had about extremism and the role of our mosques and religious institutions. We have been here before."

It's clear that certain backgrounds do predispose people to committing this kind of atrocity. If you go through the backgrounds of killers, you can find similarities and you can put them into broad categories.

In the recent cases, you'll find that all the perpetrators will have close connections to groups such as Al Mujaharoon. 25% of those imprisoned for Islamist terrorist offences have connections with Al Muj. Al Muj make up far, far less than 25% of UK Muslims. Therefore there is a connection between the two. Again Muslims make up 2% of the UK population but commit far more than 2% of the terrorist acts even allowing for differences in classification. This is not a coincidence.

I think it is rather telling that the Muslim Council of Great Britain are less in denial than some forumites:-

The Muslim Council of Britain expressed reservations at some of May's proposals. In a statement, it said: "We must be vigilant and ensure we do not inadvertently give into the demands of all extremists: making our society less free, divided and suspicious of each other. Lessons from the past indicate that policies and measures taken in haste can exacerbate extremism.

"We acknowledge that there is a difficult conversation to be had about extremism and the role of our mosques and religious institutions. We have been here before."

You did follow the link that was put up that had the Muslim Council of Britain basically telling those Muslims who couldn't abide by British laws to go and find a country that would match their bonkerdom?

You did follow the link that was put up that had the Muslim Council of Britain basically telling those Muslims who couldn't abide by British laws to go and find a country that would match their bonkerdom?

No, I did not.

But I don't remember having a go at the Muslim Council of Britain. Back at the time of the London bombing, I described them as worse than the BNP. I stand by that, they were.

These days, they are a much better organisation judging by their press releases. Progress has been made but not without "hard conversations".

Good move but what's it go to do with Setanu? It seems to me that some Christian religions see militant radical terrorist Islamists as an opportunity to bang the drum for christianity, poking their noses in where they may well not be wanted.